153 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 1967), 268, State v. Pearson

Docket Nº:268.
Citation:153 S.E.2d 494, 269 N.C. 725
Party Name:STATE of North Carolina v. Curtis PEARSON, Jr. (Case No. 47--034). STATE of North Carolina v. Thurlow BELK (Case No. 47--035).
Case Date:March 29, 1967
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 494

153 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 1967)

269 N.C. 725

STATE of North Carolina

v.

Curtis PEARSON, Jr. (Case No. 47--034).

STATE of North Carolina

v.

Thurlow BELK (Case No. 47--035).

No. 268.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 29, 1967

Page 495

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., George A. Goodwyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Charles B. Merryman, Jr., Charlotte, for appellant Belk.

James J. Caldwell, Charlotte, for appellant Pearson.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The three defendants were arrested and charged in separate warrants with the common law robbery of Albert William Jarrett. However, they were jointly indicted in a single bill. The evidence, much of which is discussed in the former opinion of this Court, disclosed the following. About midnight the victim Jarrett informed a police officer that he had just been assaulted and robbed. His face was bloody and there was a knot on his head. He described his three assailants, one of whom had a white hat. They left the scene of the robbery in a white Buick automobile. An alarm was sent out over radio and three men, one with a white hat, in a white Buick which fitted the description, were halted by officers. As

Page 496

the officers sought to interrogate them, one attempted to hide a paper bag under the seat. The driver of the vehicle, Berry, consented for the officers to search the vehicle. The officers found, in addition to money on the person of the men, a knife, pocketbook, glasses and an identification card which Jarrett later identified as the items taken from him; some of these articles were in the paper bag.

At the first trial, upon arraignment, the defendants attempted to obtain separate trials by filing objections to the consolidation. Inasmuch as the three men were jointly charged in a single bill, we are treating the motions as requests for severance rather than objections to the joinder for trial. At the time the Court considered the motions for severance, the defendants were unable to show any reason in fact or law why there should be two or three trials for one offense alleged to have been committed by the three acting in concert. Neither of the accused made any incriminating admissions; hence, here was no reason to anticipate the State would offer the admission of either which might prejudice the others who were not parties to the admission. Such prejudicial admission is usually assigned[269 N.C...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP